•o'  J 


Stratum 
of  tl|p  Horlb 


■ 

■r)  . 


(Skm 


rmm S 


'***  -fr 4  E7.  v 4fcVi  7  •* •  £■ •;»■:  v-. 


£\v>  V'-ai; ; 


P  ’-jf  jt 


mm t 


&S3 


l§g& 

Wm 

.  •  ■>.  .  \  ■ 

%\  1  A  Vi/ 


h%4^; 

Ife 

&S8S 


vSSKk 


-'•  * ,  .’4t'  ' 

^*y,<rh 

■Aj-C"  fo'v* 

IMS 

)»xm  1 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


University  of  Illinois  Library 


JiUi  U'1^3 


L161 — H41 


The  Nations  cannot,  or  at  least  will  not,  disarm  until  there  shall  have  been  estab¬ 
lished  a  Supreme  Court  of  International  Justice  endowed  with  authority  to  determine 
all  international  controversies  and  with  power  to  enforce  its  decrees.  This  means 
that  out  of  the  Hague  Tribunal  shall  come  a  true  Peace  Federation  of  the  Nations. 


2FJj t  Ammratt  ffear?  (Enmmtsaum 


LIBRARY 

OF  THF 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS. 


A  BUp 

©ornarh  iefmtfrly 
(injamztng  the  Wavlb 


May  Peace  Commissions  from  all  the  Great  Nations  come  together,  study  the  subject  of 
Permanent  International  Peace,  report  to  their  respective  governments  their  mutual  agreements, 
and  thus  prepare  the  way  for  making  The  Hague  Conference  of  1915  the  scene  of  one  of  the 
Greatest  Events  in  the  History  of  the  Nations — the  recommending  to  the  governments  rep¬ 
resented  of  Articles  of  Federation  which,  when  ratified  and  adopted  by  them,  will  result  in  the 
establishment  of  a  Supreme  Court  of  International  Justice  to  determine  all  international  contro¬ 
versies,  thus  putting  an  end  to  War  and  vastly  Diminishing  the  Expenses  of  all  Governments ! 


Published  at  New  York, 

October,  1910, 
by 

THE  WORLD-FEDERATION  LEAGUE. 
A  Department  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society, 
507  Fifth  Avenue. 


1.6 


Contents 

The  United  States  Peace  Commission  : 


HAMILTON  HOLT . .  ,  .  .  .  3 

A  Peace  Commission : 

EDITORIAL  FROM  THE  INDEPENDENT . 19 


Mr.  Carnegie  on  President  Taft’s  Famous  Utterance  :  22 

Peace  and  the  American  Peace  Commission  : 

COL.  JOHN  TEMPLE  GRAVES  IN  TV.  Y.  AMERICAN  ....  24 

* 

Recent  Progress  in  the  Peace  Movement: 

WALTER  J.  BARTNETT . 28 


Reprinted  from  “  The  North  American  Review  ,”  September,  1910. 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


BY  HAMILTON  HOLT 


On  March  30 th,  1910,  the  Hon.  William  S.  Bennet,  of  New 
York,  introduced  into  the  House  of  Representatives  the  following 
joint  resolution: 

“  Resolved:  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  respectfully 
requested  to  consider  the  expediency  of  calling  an  international  conference 
for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  possibility  of  limiting  the  armament 
of  the  nations  of  the  world  by  international  agreement.” 


Six  days  later  the  Hon.  Richard  Bartholdt  introduced  a  resolu- 

%/ 

tion  of  much  broader  scope,  whose  purpose,  as  stated  in  its  title, 
was  “  to  authorize  the  appointment  of  a  Commission  to  draft 
articles  of  international  federation.”  The  duties  of  the  Com¬ 
mission,  which  was  to  consist  of  five  members,  were  as  follows : 

“  1st.  To  urge  upon  the  attention  of  other  governments  the  fact  that 
relief  from  the  heavy  burden  of  military  expenditures  and  from  the 
disasters  of  war  can  best  be  obtained  by  the  establishment  of  an 
international  federation. 

“  2nd.  To  report  to  Congress,  as  soon  as  practicable,  a  draft  of  articles 
of  a  federation  limited  to  the  maintenance  of  peace,  through  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  an  international  court  having  power  to  determine  by  decree  all 
controversies  between  nations,  and  to  enforce  execution  of  its  decrees 
by  the  arms  of  the  federation,  such  arms  to  be  provided  to  the  federation 
and  controlled  solely  by  it. 

“  3rd.  To  consider  and  report  upon  any  other  means  to  diminish  the 
expenditures  of  government  for  military  purposes  and  to  lessen  the 
probabilities  of  war.” 

Though  Mr.  Bartholdt  had  himself  introduced  similar  bills 
into  previous  Congresses,  and  John  H.  Small  on  March  18th, 
1908,  had  presented  to  the  House  a  memorial  from  the  North 
Carolina  Peace  Society  proposing  the  appointment  of  a  Peace 
Commission,  the  present  Bartholdt  bill  was  conceived  and  drafted 
by  the  World  Federation  League  (now  the  World  Federation 


Copyright,  1910,  by  The  North  American  Review  Publishing  Company.  All  rights  reserved 


4, 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION . 


Committee  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society).  Some  peace  ad¬ 
vocates  were  sceptical,  but  the  bill  was  speedily  endorsed  by  the 
International  School  of  Peace  of  Boston  and  the  New  England 
Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress  held  at  Hartford,  Connecticut, 
on  May  11th,  1910.  A  distinguished  delegation  went  to  Wash¬ 
ington  to  appear  in  its  behalf  before  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
xlffairs.  Their  addresses  can  be  found  in  the  pamphlet  “  Interna¬ 
tional  Federation  for  the  Maintenance  of  Peace,”  House  Commit¬ 
tee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  May  7th,  1910.  The  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs,  however,  took  the  best  ideas  from  the  Bennet  and 
Bartholdt  resolutions  and  embodied  them  in  a  new  bill  under  Mr. 
BennePs  name.  This  they  reported  back  favorably  to  the  House, 
which  passed  it  unanimously  on  June  10th.  On  June  24th  the 
Senate  concurred.  The  bill  was  thereupon  signed  by  the  Presi¬ 
dent  and  is  now  law.  Its  full  text  is  as  follows : 

“  Resolved  etc. :  That  a  Commission  of  five  members  be  appointed  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  to  consider  the  expediency  of  utilizing 
existing  international  agencies  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the  armaments 
of  the  nations  of  the  world  by  international  agreement,  and  of  constitut¬ 
ing  the  combined  navies  of  the  world  an  international  force  for  the 
preservation  of  universal  peace,  and  to  consider  and  report  upon  any 
other  means  to  diminish  the  expenditures  of  government  for  military 
purposes  and  to  lessen  the  probabilities  of  war. 

“  Provided,  that  the  total  expenses  authorized  by  the  joint  resolution 
shall  not  exceed  the  sum  of  $10,000  and  that  the  Commission  shall  be 
required  to  make  its  final  report  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  the 
passage  of  this  resolution.” 

A  careful  reading  of  this  bill  discloses  the  fact  that  it  is  in 
its  essential  nature  a  measure  to  bring  about  a  world  federation 
limited  to  the  maintenance  of  peace.  Thus  the  United  States 
announces  to  the  world  that  she  is  ready  to  champion  this 
idea  in  the  council  of  nations.  For  the  first  time  in  the  annals 
of  history  a  great  people  have  officially  recognized  that  the  true 
philosophy  of  the  Peace  Movement  requires  a  world  federation 
as  the  prerequisite  of  universal  peace. 

Henry  IV  of  France  was  probably  the  first  lawgiver  to  have  a 
glimmer  of  this  peace  philosophy  when  he  conceived  his  “  Great 
Design  ”  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Other  statesmen 
have  also  dreamed  of  universal  Peace  through  federation,  while 
many  of  the  prophets  and  philosophers  and  most  of  the  poets  from 
Dante  to  Longfellow  have  seen  the  vision.  Perhaps  no  one  has 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


5 


more  clearly  perceived  the  manifold  implications  of  this  philoso¬ 
phy  than  Emanuel  Kant.  In  his  famous  essay,  “  Perpetual 
Peace,”  published  in  1795,  he  declared  that  we  can  never  have 
universal  peace  until  the  world  is  politically  organized,  and  it 
will  never  be  possible  to  organize  the  world  politically  until  the 
majority  of  the  nations  have  a  representative  form  of  government. 
At  last  all  the  peoples  of  the  world  have  achieved  in  some  measure 
representative  government.  Russia  has  its  Duma;  China  has  an¬ 
nounced  that  shortly  it  will  promulgate  a  constitution;  while 
Turkey  and  Persia  have  each  just  gone  through  the  throes  of 
revolution  and  emerged  with  a  vigorous  parliament.  If  Kant’s 
philosophy  is  sound,  the  world  is  at  last  ready  for  world  organiza¬ 
tion  and  universal  peace. 

The  only  two  powers  that  ever  have  or  ever  can  govern  human 
beings  are  force  and  reason — war  and  law.  If  we  do  not  have  one 
we  must  have  the  other.  The  problem  before  the  world  is  how 
to  decrease  the  area  of  war  and  increase  the  area  of  law  until 
war  vanishes  and  law  envelops  the  world.  At  the  present  mo¬ 
ment  the  world  is  organized  into  fifty-nine  nations  claiming  in¬ 
dependence,  and  within  their  territories — nominally  at  least — or¬ 
ganization,  law  and  peace  prevail.  We  have  already  learned  to 
substitute  law  for  war  in  hamlets,  towns,  cities,  provinces,  states 
and  even  up  to  the  fifty  -  nine  nations ;  but  in  that  inter¬ 
national  realm  over  and  above  each  nation  in  which  each  nation 
is  equally  sovereign,  the  only  way  at  the  present  moment  for  a 
nation  to  secure  its  rights  is  by  the  use  of  force.  Force,  there¬ 
fore,  or  war,  as  it  is  called  when  exerted  by  a  nation  against 
another  nation,  is  at  present  the  only  legal  and  final  method 
of  settling  international  differences.  In  other  words,  the  nations 
are  to-day  in  that  stage  of  civilization  where  without  a  qualm 
they  claim  the  right  to  settle  their  disputes  in  a  manner  which 
they  would  put  their  own  subjects  to  death  for  imitating.  The 
Peace  Movement,  therefore,  is  nothing  but  the  process  of  sub¬ 
stituting  law  for  war. 

But  how  can  we  best  establish  law  in  the  international  realm? 
Certainly  not  by  the  cumbrous  methods  of  the  present.  To-day 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  code  of  international  law  which  is 
binding  on  the  nations.  What  passes  under  the  name  of  inter¬ 
national  law  is  simply  a  series  of  arguments,  maxims,  precedents 
and  opinions.  It  is  the  work,  not  of  legislators,  but  of  scholars. 


6 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


The  nations  are  at  perfect  liberty  to  accept  it  or  reject  it,  as  they 
wish.  Before  we  can  have  a  real  international  law  we  must  have 

t 

behind  it  some  conscious  political  organization  to  give  it  sanction 
and  validity,  and  that  implies  a  federation  of  the  world. 

The  history  of  international  law  presents  striking  analogies 
to  the  history  of  private  law,  just  as  the  history  of  international 
war  does  to  private  war.  Professor  T.  J.  Lawrence,  in  his  essay 
“  The  Evolution  of  Peace,”  distinguishes  these  four  stages  in  the 
evolution  of  private  war: 

“  (1)  Kinship  is  the  sole  bond;  revenge  and  retaliation  are  unchecked, 
there  being  no  authority  whatever.  (2)  Organization  is  found  an  ad¬ 
vantage  and  tribes  under  a  chief  subdue  undisciplined  hordes.  The  right 
of  private  vengeance  within  the  tribe  is  regulated,  but  not  forbidden. 
(3)  Courts  of  Justice  exist  side  by  side  with  a  limited  right  of  ven¬ 
geance.  (4)  Private  war  is  entirely  abolished,  all  disputes  being  settled 
by  the  courts.” 

Professor  H.  Stanley  Jevons,  who  thus  summarizes  Lawrence, 
adds :  “  In  international  relations  we  are  entering  in  the  third 
stage.”  International  law,  therefore,  is  in  the  same  state  of  de¬ 
velopment  as  private  law  of  about  the  tenth  century. 

Likewise  the  history  of  the  organization  of  the  “  United  Na¬ 
tions  ”  which  is  to  give  the  sanction  to  international  law  will 
correspond  to  the  history  of  the  organization  of  the  thirteen 
American  Colonies  into  the  United  States.  The  “  United  Na¬ 
tions,”  however,  has  already  reached  the  same  stage  of  develop¬ 
ment  as  the  American  Colonies  at  the  time  of  their  first  con¬ 
federation. 

The  organization  of  the  world  has  therefore  begun.  The  first 
official  step  was  taken  in  1888  when  James  B.  McCreary  intro¬ 
duced  a  bill  into  the  United  States  Congress  establishing  the 
Pan-American  Conferences.  These  Conferences  are  the  legislative 
branch  of  the  Pan-American  Federation  of  Republics.  The  germs 
of  the  Pan-American  executive  can  be  seen  in  the  Bureau  of  the 
American  Republics  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  though  a  distinct  Pan- 
American  Court  is  not  yet  in  evidence. 

The  second  step  in  world  organization  was  the  birth  of  the 
Interparliamentary  Union  at  Paris,  in  the  following  year,  due 
largely  to  the  efforts  of  the  English  carpenter,  William  Randal 
Cremer,  since  crowned  with  the  Nobel  Peace  Prize.  The  Inter¬ 
parliamentary  Union  is  the  germ  of  the  federation  of  the  parlia- 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION.  7 

ments  of  the  world.  To  its  action  is  largely  due  the  calling 
of  the  First  Hague  Conference  by  the  Tsar  of  Russia  and  the 
Second  Hague  Conference  by  President  Roosevelt.  Some  have 
seen  in  the  Interparliamentary  Union  the  germ  of  the  Lower 
House  of  the  World  Parliament,  the  Hague  Conferences  being 
the  germ  of  the  Upper  House. 

The  establishment  of  the  Hague  Conferences,  however,  is  by 
far  the  most  important  step  ever  taken  towards  peace  through 
world  organization.  Ho  wonder  the  first  Conference  has  been 
called  the  Magna  Charta  of  International  Law.  In  the  Hague 
Court  and  the  recurring  Hague  Conferences  we  see  the  germs 
of  the  international  court  and  the  parliament  of  man.  The 
problem  is  how  to  develop  these  so  that  they  will  become  the 
judicial  and  legislative  departments  of  a  powerful  world  con¬ 
stitution.  The  creation  of  the  executive  department  of  the 
“  United  Nations,”  though  still  in  embryo,  is  contemplated  in 
the  clause  of  the  Rennet  joint  resolution  requiring  the  Peace 
Commission  to  consider  “  constituting  the  combined  navies  of  the 
world  an  international  force  for  the  preservation  of  universal 
peace.” 

How  what  can  the  Peace  Commission  do?  It  cannot  treat 
officially  with  foreign  Governments,  for  it  has  no  diplomatic 
status.  That  is  as  it  should  be.  It  would  be  extremely  unwise 
for  it  to  usurp  in  any  way  the  functions  of  the  American  delega¬ 
tion  to  the  Third  Hague  Conference.  It  would  seem  to  be  an 
established  fact  that  all  advances  toward  peace  through  interna¬ 
tional  law  are  to  be  effectuated  hereafter  at  the  recurring  Hague 
Conferences.  The  eight  years7  interval  that  elapses  between  them 
is  none  too  long  for  a  world  public  sentiment  to  ripen  and  crystal¬ 
lize.  As  Senator  Root  has  well  said : 

“  The  world  has  entered  upon  an  orderly  process  through  which,  step 
by  step,  in  successive  conferences,  each  taking  the  work  of  its  predecessor 
as  its  point  of  departure,  there  may  be  continual  progress  towards  mak¬ 
ing  the  practice  of  civilized  nations  conform  to  their  peaceful  professions.” 

When  the  present  writer  attended  the  Second  Hague  Conference 
in  the  summer  of  1907,  it  was  quite  obvious  that  the  chief  trouble 
with  that  Conference  was  the  fact  that  the  delegates  came  there 
more  or  less  unprepared.  When  resolutions  were  “sprung77  on 
them  they  did  not  know  just  what  to  do.  They  had  to  report 
back  to  their  Governments,  but  the  Governments,  not  being  on 


8 


THE  VISIT  ED  STATED  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


the  spot,  were  hesitant  how  to  instruct  them.  Thus  a  great  deal 
of  time  was  lost  and  much  was  left  undone  that  could  other¬ 
wise  have  been  done.  The  only  nation  that  came  to  the  Second 
Hague  Conference  thoroughly  prepared  was  Germany.  Her 
delegation  devoted  the  whole  winter  before  the  Conference  assem¬ 
bled  to  a  thorough  study  of  the  questions  to  be  brought  before  it. 
On  many  subjects  she  was  the  chief  obstacle  to  progress  there, 
but  the  thoroughness  of  her  preparation  enabled  her  to  exert  a 
greater  influence  on  the  results  of  the  Conference  than  the  in¬ 
herent  merits  of  her  proposals  justified.  Our  Government, 
therefore,  will  have  at  its  service  a  Commission  who  will 
have  devoted  all  their  talents  to  mastering  the  greatest  issue 
now  before  the  world.  The  State  Department,  with  its  manifold 
duties,  has  neither  the  time  nor  equipment  to  compass  the  work. 
The  delegates  to  the  Third  Hague  Conference  will  be  appointed 
only  a  few  months  before  they  go  to  Holland.  They  will  have 
no  time  to  work  out  any  scheme  of  world  federation.  Upon 
the  Peace  Commission,  therefore,  will  devolve  the  duty  of  point¬ 
ing  out  how  the  United  States  can  take  the  lead  in  this  move¬ 
ment.  Its  report  will  enable  our  delegation  to  the  Third  Hague 
Conference  to  secure  the  greatest  possible  results  in  that  most 
august  world  assembly.  Surely  no  greater  or  nobler  opportunity 
has  ever  come  to  five  statesmen  to  serve  humanity. 

How  what  are  the  problems  that  must  come  before  the  Com¬ 
mission?  The  joint  resolution  that  brought  it  into  being  re¬ 
quires  it  to  consider  these  three  questions: 

1.  The  limitation  of  armaments  by  international  agreement. 

2.  The  possibility  of  combining  the  navies  of  the  world  for  peace. 

3.  Any  other  methods  to  bring  about  peace. 

Let  us  take  up  each  of  these  in  order. 

When  the  Tsar  of  Russia  called  the  First  Hague  Conference 
of  1899  his  fondest  hope  was  that  the  burdens  of  overgrowing 
and  ever-growing  armaments  that  were  impoverishing  the  peoples 
of  the  world  might  in  some  way  be  taken  off  their  backs.  He 
did  not  see  that  disarmament  cannot  take  place  until  the  world 
is  politically  organized  and  that  it  is  just  as  absurd  for  nations 
to  disarm  before  the  existence  of  international  courts,  parlia¬ 
ments  and  executives  as  it  would  be  for  cowboys  to  discard  their 
pistols  before  there  are  sheriffs  and  justices  of  the  peace.  The 
First  Hague  Conference  started  in  bravely  enough  and  assigned 


THE  UNITED  8TATE8  PEACE  C0MMI88I0N. 


9 


the  question  of  the  limitation  of  armaments  to  one  of  its  most 
important  committees.  It  was  the  frontispiece  ”  of  the  Circular 
of  the  Russian  Government,  and  the  Russian  delegation  strained 
every  nerve  to  have  the  Conference  take  some  action  in  the  mat¬ 
ter.  Colonel  Gilinsky,  who  had  charge  of  the  question,  prefaced 
the  introduction  of  his  proposals  with  these  words : 

“  Will  the  peoples  represented  in  this  Conference  be  entirely  satisfied, 
if,  in  going  hence,  we  take  them  arbitration  and  the  laws  of  warfare, 
but  nothing  for  times  of  peace, — of  this  armed  peace  which  is  so  heavy 
a  burden  on  the  nations,  which  crushes  them  to  that  point  where  it  can 
be  sometimes  said  that  open  war  would  perhaps  be  better  than  this*  state 
of  secret  war,  this  incessant  competition  in  which  all  the  world  pushes 
forward  larger  and  larger  armies — larger  now  in  time  of  peace  than  they 
used  to  be  in  times  of  greatest  warfare?  The  various  countries  have 
engaged  in  war  only  once  in  every  twenty  or  thirty  years;  but  this 
armed  peace  lasts  for  decades,  it  precedes  war  and  follows  it.” 

Despite  all  of  Russia's  efforts  to  the  contrary,  the  Committee 
which  had  the  matter  in  charge  made  the  following  report : 

“  The  members  of  the  committee  charged  with  the  examination  of  the 
propositions  of  Colonel  Gilinsky,  relating  to  the  first  topic  of  Count 
Mouravieff’s  circular,  have  met  twice.  WTith  the  exception  of  Colonel 
Gilinsky,  they  have  decided  unanimously:  first,  that  it  would  be  very 
difficult  to  fix,  even  for  a  term  of  five  years,  the  number  of  troops,  with¬ 
out  regulating  at  the  same  time  other  elements  of  the  national  defence; 
second,  that  it  wuuld  be  no  less  difficult  to  regulate  by  an  international 
agreement  the  elements  of  this  defence,  organized  in  each  country  upon 
very  different  principles.  Hence,  the  committee  regrets  its  inability  to 
accept  the  proposition  made  in  the  name  of  the  Russian  Government. 
The  majority  of  its  members  believe  that  a  more  thorough  study  of  the 
question  by  the  governments  themselves  would  be  desirable.” 

The  Conference  accepted  this  memorial  from  the  Committee  and 
adjourned  after  having  passed  the  following  resolution: 

“  The  Conference  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  restriction  of  military 
charges  which  are  at  present  a  heavy  burden  on  the  world  is  extremely 
desirable  for  the  increase  of  the  material  and  moral  welfare  of  mankind.” 

It  also  added  the  following  wish  ( vceu ) : 

“  The  Conference  expresses  the  wish  that  the  governments  taking  into 
consideration  the  proposals  made  at  the  Conference  may  examine  the 
possibility  of  an  agreement  as  to  the  limitation  of  armed  forces  by  land 
and  sea  and  of  war  budgets.” 

During  the  interval  between  the  First  and  Second  Hague  Con¬ 
ferences  the  Governments  paid  no  attention  to  these  suggestions, 


30 


THE  UNITED  ST  AT  EE  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


but  went  ahead  increasing  their  armaments  at  a  rate  and  on  a 
scale  hitherto  unprecedented.  The  only  two  utterances  by  respon¬ 
sible  heads  of  States  against  this  militaristic  aggrandizement  that 
I  recall  were  made  by  the  British  Prime  Minister  and  the  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  United  States.  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman,  in 
a  notable  speech  at  Albert  Hall,  London,  in  December,  1905,  said: 

“  I  hold  that  the  growth  of  armaments  is  a  great  danger  to  the  peace 
of  the  world.  A  policy  of  huge  armaments  keeps  alive,  and  stimulates, 
and  feeds  the  idea  that  force  is  the  best,  if  not  the  only,  solution  of 
international  differences.  It  is  a  policy  that  tends  to  inflame  old  sores 
and  to  create  new  sores,  and  I  submit  to  you  that  as  the  principle  of 
pacific  arbitration  gains  ground,  it  becomes  one  of  the  highest  tasks  of 
a  statesman  to  adjust  those  armaments  to  a  newer  and  happier  condition 
of  things.  What  nobler  role  could  this  great  country  assume  than  at  the 
fitting  moment  to  place  itself  at  the  head  of  a  League  of  Peace  through 
whose  instrumentality  this  great  work  might  be  effected?” 

xAud  Theodore  Roosevelt,  in  a  letter  to  the  New  York  Peace 
and  Arbitration  Congress  held  in  April,  1907,  wrote: 

“  The  most  practical  step  in  the  diminishing  the  burden  of  expense 
caused  by  the  increasing  size  of  naval  armament  would,  I  believe,  be  an 
agreement  limiting  the  size  of  all  ships  hereafter  to  be  built.” 

England  and  the  United  States  accordingly  “  reserved  the 
right  ”  to  bring  up  the  discussion  of  the  limitation  of  armaments 
at  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  especially  as  Russia  had  aban¬ 
doned  her  championship  of  the  cause  and  was  proposing  to  bar  it 
out  of  the  discussion.  Not,  however,  until  after  the  Conference 
had  been  in  session  over  eight  weeks  was  the  subject  introduced. 
Then  England  made  the  following  tentative  proposition,  although 
Germany,  Austria,  Russia  and  Japan  had  announced  that  they 
would  take  no  part  in  the  discussion : 

“  The  Government  of  Great  Britain  will  be  ready  to  communicate  each 
year  to  the  powers  that  will  do  the  same,  its  plan  of  constructing  new 
war-ships  and  the  expenditures  which  this  plan  will  require.  Such  an 
exchange  of  information  will  facilitate  an  exchange  of  views  between  the 
governments  on  the  reductions  which  by  common  agreement  may  be 
effected.  The  Britannic  Government  believes  that  in  this  way  an  under¬ 
standing  may  be  reached  on  the  expenditures  which  the  states  that  agree 
to  pursue  this  course  will  be  justified  in  entering  upon  their  budgets.” 

After  Mr.  Choate  in  behalf  of  the  American  delegation  had 
“  expressed  his  sympathy  for  the  views  which  have  been  stated 
by  His  Excellency  the  First  Delegate  of  the  British  Delegation,” 


THE  UNITED  STATED  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


11 


the  discussion  was  solemnly  dropped  and  the  whole  question  was 
tabled  again  in  the  following  resolution : 

“  The  Second  Peace  Conference  confirms  the  resolution  adopted  by  the 
Conference  of  1809  in  regard  to  the  limitation  of  military  expenditure; 
and  inasmuch  as  military  expenditure  has  considerably  increased  in 
almost  every  country  since  that  time,  the  Conference  declares  that  it  is 
eminently  desirable  that  the  governments  should  resume  the  serious 
examination  of  this  question.” 

Here  the  matter  rests  to-day.  All  of  which  shows,  I  think, 
that  until  we  have  gone  much  farther  along  the  path  of  world 
federation,  the  problem  of  the  limitation  of  armaments  presents 
questions,  as  Chancellor  von  Billow  has  said,  “  to  which  there  is 
at  present  no  concrete,  serious,  practical,  realizable  answer.” 

The  second  question  before  the  Peace  Commission — namely,  the 
consideration  of  combining  the  navies  of  the  world  for  peace — 
will  also  present  many  practical  difficulties.  This  is  primarily  a 
problem  of  the  use  of  force,  and  force  except  as  exercised  under 
law  is  always  arbitrary  and  usually  oppressive  or  tyrannous.  As 
Professor  John  Basset  Moore  has  well  said: 

“  The  great  problem  confronting  those  who  wish  to  do  away  with 
war  is  how  to  employ  the  force  necessary  to  the  restraint  or  repression 
of  evil  without  producing  the  legal  condition  of  things  called  a  state  of 
war.  The  most  striking  imperfection  in  the  international  system  to-day 
is  the  lack  of  a  common  agency  for  the  enforcement  of  law.  If,  at  the 
present  time,  a  contest  by  force  breaks  out  between  two  nations,  the  con¬ 
flict  is  recognized  as  a  war,  and  other  nations  assume  the  attitude  of 
neutrals,  even  though  the  cause  of  the  conflict  be  the  flagrant  disregard 
by  one  of  the  contending  nations  of  a  well-settled  principle  of  inter¬ 
national  law.  Such  a  condition  of  things  involves  an  obvious  incongruity, 
the  remedy  for  which  would  be  the  organization  of  a  common  agency  for 
the  enforcement  of  a  law;  the  addition,  in  other  words,  to  judicial  and 
legislative  power  of  what  we  call  executive  power.  This  is  a  problem  of 
the  future,  probably  of  the  far-distant  future;  but  it  is  an  ideal  and  a 
goal  toward  which  it  is  permissible  to  labor.” 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  over-sanguine  to  hope  that  the  existing  na¬ 
tional  armaments  may  be  brought  into  regular  and  concerted 
action  for  compelling  obedience  to  judicial  decisions  among  na¬ 
tions  that  have  agreed  to  this  method  of  settling  their  disputes. 
It  may  even  be  anticipated  that  the  combined  military  power  of 
the  Governments  which  agree  to  the  foregoing  may  be  used  to 
assist  one  of  themselves  in  a  controversy  with  a  nation  that  has 
not  agreed  previously  to  resort  to  arbitration  and  that  refuses 


12 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


so  to  agree  upon  request.  Such  an  agreement  would  tend  to 
enthrone  law  and  to  suppress  arbitrary  action.  Entering  into 
it  would  not  subject  the  United  States  to  the  necessity  of  waging 
war  through  the  erroneous  action  of  its  allies  in  an  “  entangling 
alliance/’  but  only  for  extending  the  reign  of  law.  This  is  the 
fundamental  purpose  of  our  Government,  and  perhaps  the  United 
States  is  now  ready  to  go  thus  far. 

But  the  questions  of  the  limitation  of  armament  and  the 
proper  use  of  force  for  preserving  peace  are  only  practical  after 
the  nations  have  federated  themselves  for  that  purpose.  Given  a 
world  federation,  or  League  of  Peace,  the  problem  of  the  es¬ 
tablishment  and  exercise  of  an  international  police  power  will 
present  no  greater  difficulties  than  the  similar  problem  which 
confronted  the  framers  of  the  United  States  Constitution  or  even 
of  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  "It  must  ever  be  borne  in  mind, 
however,  that  the  world  constitution  will  differ  in  this  important 
respect  from  the  United  States  Constitution.  Our  Constitution 
is  both  an  instrument  for  federating  the  States  and  for  guar¬ 
anteeing  each  citizen  within  the  Union  certain  rights;  the  pro¬ 
posed  world  constitution  as  yet  merely  federates  the  nations  and 
has  no  relation  whatsoever  to  any  so-called  “  world  citizen.” 

The  third  and  final  question  before  the  Peace  Commission  is 
to  “  consider  and  report  ”  on  any  other  measures  to  bring  about 
universal  peace.  This  gives  the  Commission  power  to  take  up 
the  only  practical  and  promising  “  next  step  ”  in  the  Peace  Move¬ 
ment,  namely,  world  federation.  That  the  world  is  already  to 
some  extent  federated  is  proved  by  the  existence  of  the  Inter¬ 
parliamentary  Union,  the  Pan-American  and  Hague  Conferences. 
The  world,  however,  has  scarcely  realized  this,  though  glimmer¬ 
ings  of  the  light  are  already  penetrating  high  places.  Our  Gov¬ 
ernment  nevertheless  is  imbued  with  the  idea,  as  is  evident  from 
its  insistence  upon  periodical  and  self-governing  conferences  at 
The  Hague,  from  the  establishment  of  the  present  Peace  Com¬ 
mission  and  from  the  following  highly  significant  peroration  in 
Secretary  Knox’s  great  address,  “  The  Spirit  and  Purposes  of 
American  Diplomacy,”  delivered  on  June  15th  at  the  Commence¬ 
ment  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania: 

“  We  have  reached  a  point  when  it  is  evident  that  the  future  holds  in 
store  a  time  when  wars  shall  cease ;  when  the  nations  of  the  world  shall 
realize  a  federation  as  real  and  vital  as  that  now  subsisting  between  the 


TEE  VEIT  ED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION.  13 

component  parts  of  a  single  State;  when  by  deliberate  international  con¬ 
junction  the  strong  shall  universally  help  the  weak,  and  when  the  cor¬ 
porate  righteousness  of  the  world  shall  compel  unrighteousness  to 
disappear  and  shall  destroy  the  habitations  of  cruelty  still  lingering  in 
the  dark  places  of  the  earth.  This  is  the  spirit  of  the  wide  world  brood¬ 
ing  on  things  to  come.  That  day  will  be  the  millennium,  of  course;  but 
in  some  sense  and  degree  it  will  surely  be  realized  in  this  dispensation  of 
mortal  time.” 

It  is  gratifying  in  this  connection  to  remember  that  in  1890 
before  a  single  general  arbitration  treaty  was  in  existence  the 
United  States  Congress  passed  a  resolution  inviting  our  State 
Department  to  make  treaties  of  arbitration  with  other  nations 
similarly  disposed.  That  was  at  a  time  when  all  disputes  that 
did  not  end  in  war  were  settled  by  conciliation  through  di¬ 
plomacy.  In  twenty  years  the  world  has  gone  from  conciliation 
to  arbitration.  It  is  now  ready  to  go  from  arbitration  to  a  world 
federation.  Thus  again  our  Government  takes  the  lead  in  the 
movement  for  universal  peace. 

Before  the  First  Hague  Conference  assembled,  a  considerable 
literature  already  existed  on  world  federation,  of  which  that  con¬ 
tributed  by  Penn,  Franklin,  Burritt,  Sumner,  Ladd,  Hale  and 
others  in  this  country  was  by  no  means  the  least  important.  After 
the  First  Hague  Conference,  however,  it  became  at  once  evident 
that  world  federation  had  passed  from  the  dreams  of  peace  advo¬ 
cates  into  the  realities  of  practical  statesmanship.  Those  Ameri¬ 
cans  who  have  done  much  in  the  last  decade  to  organize  the  world 
or  spread  the  idea  of  world  federation  include  among  others 
Richard  Bartholdt,  W.  J'.  Bartnett,  Hayne  Davis,  Raymond  L. 
Bridgman,  Theodore  E.  Burton,  Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  Andrew 
Carnegie,  Joseph  H.  Choate,  Oscar  T.  Crosby,  Samuel  T.  Dutton, 
John  W.  Foster,  Henry  B.  Granger,  William  T.  Hull,  Frederick 
Lynch,  Edwin  D.  Mead,  John  B.  Moore,  Elihu  Root,  Theodore 
Roosevelt,  James  Brown  Scott,  Albert  K.  Smiley,  Benjamin  F. 
Trueblood  and  Andrew  D.  White.  Among  these  Hayne  Davis 
and  Richard  Bartholdt  deserve  special  recognition.  Mr.  Davis 
in  many  magazine  articles  has  gone  exhaustively  into  the  problems 
of  federation  and  has  actually  foreshadowed  the  principal  actions 
of  the  governments  as  well  as  the  Interparliamentary  Conferences. 
In  1903  he  outlined  the  formation  of  an  International  LTnion  in 
the  image  of  the  United  States,  emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  the  Haeme  Court  actually  constituted  a  world  federation. 

V-/  %' 


14 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


“  To  regard  the  formation  of  this  United  Nations  as  a  fancy  is  to 
ignore  the  fact  that  it  has  already  been  formed.  To  look  upon  its  final 
perfection  in  the  likeness  of  the  United  States  as  visionary  is  to  ignore 
the  essential  political  history  of  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries/’ 

Mr.  Bartholdt  has  ever  been  foremost  among  American  lawmakers 
as  an  advocate  of  international  organization  and  federation.  It 
was  he  who  proposed  the  Interparliamentary  resolution  upon 
which  President  Eoosevelt  acted  in  calling  the  Second  Hague 
Conference,  and  in  accordance  wbth  those  terms  the  American 
Delegation  at  that  Conference  proposed  the  establishment  of  a 
self-governing  permanent  international  Assembly. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  suggestions  for  federating  the 
world  to-day  are  those  contained  in  Mr.  Bartholdt’s  proposals 
at  the  Thirteenth  Interparliamentary  Conference  at  Brussels  in 
1905;  Uruguay’s  proposals  introduced  by  Jose  Battle  y  Ordonez, 
ex-President  of  Uruguay,  at  the  Second  Hague  Conference  on 
July  4th,  1907;  Theodore  Roosevelt’s  recent  Nobel  Peace  ad¬ 
dress  delivered  May  5th  at  Christiania,  Norway;  and  Andrew 
Carnegie’s  Rectorial  address,  entitled  “  A  League  of  Peace,”  given 
before  the  University  of  St.  Andrews  on  October  17th,  1905. 

Mr.  Bartholdt’s  suggestions  contemplate  a  World  Federation 
with  a  World  Congress  based  on  the  following  five  fundamental 
guarantees : 

1.  The  territory  and  sovereignty  of  each  nation  represented  to  be 
respected  by  all. 

2.  Each  nation  to  have  the  right  to  arm  itself  according  to  its  own 

judgment. 

3.  Each  nation  to  have  the  right  to  withdraw  at  any  time. 

4.  War  to  remain  a  lawful  mode  of  action  among  the  members  in 
settling  disputes,  except  as  they  severally  agree  to  refer  questions  to 
arbitration. 

5.  The  armed  forces  of  all  the  nations  to  be  at  the  service  of  the 
Congress  for  the  enforcement  of  any  decrees  rendered  by  the  Hague  Court 
according  to  treaties  of  arbitration. 

The  proposals  of  ex-President  Ordonez  are  as  follows: 

“  1.  From  the  moment  when  ten  nations  (of  whom  half  have  at  least 
25,000,000  inhabitants  each)  shall  agree  to  submit  to  arbitration  the 
differences  which  may  arise  between  them,  they  shall  have  the  right  to 
form  an  alliance  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  into  the  disagreements  and 
disputes  which  shall  arise  between  the  other  nations  and  to  intervene 
when  they  shall  judge  it  advantageous  in  the  interest  of  a  just  solution. 

“  2.  These  allied  nations  shall  have  the  power  to  establish  a  tribunal 
of  obligatory  arbitration  at  The  Hague  (if  the  kingdom  of  Holland  is  a 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION.  15 

party  of  the  alliance)  or  at  some  other  city  which  may  be  designated  for 
the  same  purpose. 

“  3.  This  alliance  in  favor  of  obligatory  arbitration  will  only  intervene 
in  cases  of  international  disagreements,  and  never  will  have  the  right  to 
interfere  in  the  internal  affairs  of  any  nation. 

“  4.  All  the  nations  which  subscribe  to  the  principle  of  obligatory 
arbitration  will  have  the  right  to  become  a  party  to  the  Alliance  destined 
to  suppress  the  evils  of  war.” 

Mr.  Roosevelt’s  proposals  contained  in  his  Christiania  address 
are  in  brief: 

1.  Mutual  guarantees  to  respect  national  territory  and  sovereignty 
and  to  arbitrate  all  other  questions. 

2.  The  development  of  the  Hague  Court  and  Conferences. 

3.  The  limitation  of  national  armaments  by  international  agreement. 

4.  A  League  of  Peace,  of  enlightened  Powers,  “  not  only  to  keep  the 
peace  themselves,  but  to  prevent  by  force,  if  necessary,  its  being  broken 
by  others.” 

Mr.  Carnegie’s  suggestions  are  embodied  in  the  following  quota¬ 
tion  from  his  Rectorial  address: 

“  Five  nations  co-operated  in  quelling  the  recent  Chinese  disorders  and 
rescuing  their  representatives  in  Pekin.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  these 
five  nations  could  banish  war.  Suppose  even  three  of  them  formed  a 
League  of  Peace — inviting  all  other  nations  to  join — and  agreed  that 
since  war  in  any  part  of  the  civilized  world  affects  all  nations,  and 
often  seriously,  no  nation  shall  go  to  war,  but  shall  refer  international 
disputes  to  the  Hague  Conference  or  other  arbitral  body  for  peaceful 
settlement,  the  League  agreeing  to  declare  non-intercourse  with  any 
nation  refusing  compliance.  Imagine  a  nation  cut  off  to-day  from  the 
world.  The  League  also  might  reserve  to  itself  the  right,  where  non¬ 
intercourse  is  likely  to  fail  or  has  failed  to  prevent  war,  to  use  the 
necessary  force  to  maintain  the  peace,  each  member  of  the  League  agree¬ 
ing  to  provide  the  needed  forces  or  money  in  lieu  thereof,  in  proportion 
to  her  population  or  wealth.  Being  experimental  and  upon  trial,  it 
might  be  deemed  advisable,  if  necessary,  at  first  to  agree  that  any  member 
could  withdraw  after  giving  five  years’  notice,  and  that  the  League 
should  dissolve  five  years  after  a  majority  vote  of  all  the  members. 
Further  provisions  and  perhaps  some  adaptations  would  be  found 
requisite,  but  the  main  idea  is  here.” 

It  will  be  seen  that  all  these  four  proposals  contemplate  Peace 
through  Justice.  All  contemplate  the  use  of  force  to  compel 
obedience  to  the  will  of  the  League,  though  Mr.  Carnegie  only 
after  a  boycott.  All  contemplate  the  development  of  the  Hague 
Court.  Mr.  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Bartholdt  desire  that  territory 
and  sovereignty  shall  be  the  subject  neither  of  arbitration  nor 


16  THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION. 

of  war,  but  shall  be  guaranteed  as  the  basis  for  the  structure  of 
international  justice.  Senor  Ordonez  and  Mr.  Carnegie  seem  to 
imply  that  disputes  about  territory  and  sovereignty  may  be  the 
subject  of  arbitration,  but  not  of  war.  Mr.  Bartholdt  and  Mr. 
Boosevelt  make  no  suggestions  as  to  the  number  who  shall  enter 
the  League,  but  Mr.  Carnegie  wants  at  least  three  and  Senor 
Ordonez  at  least  ten,  five  of  whom  shall  be  great  Powers.  Mr. 
Bartholdt  limits  the  use  of  force  to  members  within  the  League. 
Mr.  Boosevelt,  Mr.  Carnegie  and  Senor  Ordonez  propose  the  use 
of  the  League’s  armed  forces  against  outside  nations.  Mr.  Bar¬ 
tholdt  and  Mr.  Carnegie  would  allow  the  withdrawal  of  a  nation 
from  the  League  upon  due  notice.  Mr.  Bartholdt  contemplates 
the  present  policy  of  national  armaments,  Mr.  Carnegie  and  Senor 
Ordonez  permit  but  do  not  seem  to  prefer  present  armaments, 
while  Mr.  Boosevelt  requires  the  limitation  of  armaments. 

There  is  some  danger  in  the  Boosevelt,  Carnegie  and  Ordonez 
proposals  that  a  League  of  Peace  should  be  organized  with  power 
to  prevent  “  by  force  ”  its  being  broken  by  others.  Such  a  League 
of  Peace  might  easily  become  a  League  of  Oppression.  A  League 
with  power  to  exert  its  will  without  constitutional  limitations  on 
its  own  members,  to  say  nothing  of  those  without  its  jurisdiction, 
would  have  the  right  to  be  judge  and  sheriff  in  its  own  cause, 
and  that  is  a  violation  of  the  first  principles  of  justice.  Con¬ 
stitutional  safeguards,  therefore,  would  seem  to  be  essential  to 
any  League  of  Peace  that  is  expected  to  be  of  enduring  service 
to  humanity. 

Prior  to  the  formation  of  “  a  more  perfect  union ”  our  original 
thirteen  States  were  united  in  a  League  or  Confederacy  some¬ 
what  like  that  now  proposed  on  an  international  scale.  They 
were  obliged  by  the  Articles  of  this  Confederacy  to  respect  each 
other’s  territory  and  sovereignty,  to  arbitrate  all  questions  among 
themselves,  to  assist  each  other  against  any  foreign  foe,  not  to 
engage  in  war  unless  called  upon  by  the  Confederation  to  do  so, 
or  actually  invaded  by  a  foreign  foe,  and  not  to  maintain  armed 
forces  in  excess  of  the  strength  fixed  for  each  State  by  all  the 
States  in  Congress  assembled. 

It  is  notable  that  security  against  aggression  from  States 
inside  or  outside  the  American  Union  accompanied  the  agree¬ 
ment  to  limit  armaments.  Thus  danger  of  war  and  size  of 
armaments  were  decreased  contemporaneously.  Both  our  State 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION.  17 

and  National  Governments  are  bound  by  strict  constitutional 
limitations  to  prevent  abuse  of  power  invested  in  them.  And 
these  limitations  have  often  protected  the  people  against  the 
Government  itself.  How,  then,  can  any  international  Govern¬ 
ment  which  may  come  into  being  be  trusted  not  to  abuse  its 
power  ? 

Mr.  Roosevelt’s  concluding  statement  seems  to  recognize  these 
difficulties,  for  he  says :  “  The  combination  [League  of  Peace] 
might  at  first  be  only  to  secure  peace  within  certain  definite 
limits  and  certain  definite  conditions.”  He  does  not,  however, 
outline  these  “  limits  ”  and  “  conditions.” 

It  will  probably  be  found  that  any  League  of  Peace  likely  to 
be  established  at  the  present  time  will  have  to  be  based  on  these 
three  propositions: 

1.  Each  nation  in  the  League  to  respect  the  sovereignty  and  terri¬ 
torial  integrity  of  the  others. 

2.  The  armies  and  navies  of  the  members  of  the  League  to  be  at  its 
service  to  enforce  the  decrees  of  the  International  Tribunal  in  all  ques¬ 
tions  that  the  members  of  the  League  previously  agree  to  refer  to  arbi¬ 
tration. 

3.  The  Armies  and  Navies  of  the  League  to  sustain  any  member  of 
the  League  in  a  dispute  with  any  outside  nation  which  refuses  to 
arbitrate. 

This  would  put  the  forces  of  the  League  on  the  side  of  law 
and  order  and  not  on  the  side  of  arbitrary  will,  as  it  might 
conceivably  be  under  the  proposals  of  Mr.  Roosevelt,  Mr.  Carnegie 
or  Senor  Ordonez. 

As  far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned,  the  Peace  Com¬ 
mission  will  have  to  remember  that  there  are  manifest  advantages 
in  making  proposals  which  will  require  no  constitutional  amend¬ 
ments  for  their  adoption  by  this  country.  All  the  foregoing 
proposals  contemplate  the  use  of  the  armed  forces  of  the  United 
States  in  a  League  of  Peace.  The  power  to  declare  war  under 
our  Constitution  is  vested  in  Congress  alone,  and  even  in  time 
of  war  Congress  is  forbidden  to  make  military  appropriations 
for  more  than  two  years  ahead.  It  is  by  no  means  certain,  there¬ 
fore,  that  either  the  Roosevelt,  Bartholdt,  Carnegie  or  Ordonez 
proposal  to  put  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States  at  the 
service  of  a  League  of  Peace  is  constitutional.  Nevertheless,  the 
organization  of  an  international  government,  Tennyson’s  dream 
of  “  The  Federation  of  the  World,”  is  essential  to  the  further 


18 


THE  UNITED  STATES  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


progress  of  the  Peace  Movement.  All  obstacles  will  have  to 
give  way,  even  constitutional  ones.  The  monster  of  war  must 
be  destroyed.  The  majesty  of  law  co-extensive  with  human  inter¬ 
course  can  alone  achieve  this  beneficent  and  inevitable  result. 

The  International  Peace  Congress  which  has  just  concluded  its 
week’s  session  at  Christiania,  on  August  5th,  and  whose  600  dele¬ 
gates  represented  all  the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth,  applauded 
every  reference  to  the  American  Peace  Commission  and  passed  a 
resolution  by  acclamation  urging  all  the  nations  to  follow  the 
lead  of  the  United  States.  It  is  also  announced  that  Mr.  Bartholdt 
in  behalf  of  the  American  Group  will  introduce  the  following 
resolution  into  the  forthcoming  Conference  of  the  Interparlia¬ 
mentary  Union  at  Brussels,  from  August  29th  to  September  2nd : 

“  Resolved,  That,  in  order  to  devise  definite  plans  for  submission  to  the 
third  Hague  Conference,  looking  to  the  further  perfection  of  a  system  of 
world  federation  by  providing,  in  addition  to  an  international  judiciary, 
an  international  legislature  as  well  as  international  executive  powers  for 
the  enforcement  of  judicial  decrees,  this  conference  further  requests  each 
of  the  governments  and  parliaments  here  represented  to  forthwith  proceed 
with  the  appointment  and  creation  of  a  national  commission  analagous 
to  the  commission  recently  authorized  to  be  appointed  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  such  commissions  to  report  to  their  respective  par¬ 
liaments  within  two  years,  to  the  end  that,  by  the  time  the  third  interna¬ 
tional  conference  will  convene  at  The  Hague,  namely  in  1915,  each  govern¬ 
ment  may  be  ready  with  a  well-defined  plan  of  its  own  for  the  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  the  purposes  above  set  forth.” 

If  now  our  Peace  Commission  can  outline  a  practical  plan  for 
World  Federation  the  Governments  can  be  depended  upon  to  press 
along  this  line  at  successive  Hague  Conferences,  until  finally,  as 
Victor  Hugo  prophesied  in  1849,  “  the  only  battle-field  will  be 
the  market  opening  to  commerce  and  the  mind  opening  to  new 
ideas.” 


Hamilton  Holt. 


A  PEACE  COMMISSION. 

Reprint  of  Editorial  in  “  The  Independent  ”  of  June  30,  1910. 


Last  week  both  the  Seriate  and  House  passed  the  bill  bearing 
the  name  of  Congressman  Bennet,  of  New  York,  authorizing  the 
President  to  appoint  a  commission  of  five  members  “  to  consider 
the  expediency  of  utilizing  existing  international  agencies  for 
the  purpose  of  limiting  the  armaments  of  the  nations  of  the 
world  by  international  agreement,  and  of  constituting  the  com¬ 
bined  navies  of  the  world  an  international  force  for  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  universal  peace.75  The  commission  is  to  make  its  report 
within  two  years,  and  a  sum  of  $10,000  is  allowed  for  its  ex¬ 
penses.  It  is  announced  that  President  Taft  will  offer  the 
chairmanship  of  the  commission  to  Mr.  Roosevelt. 

This  bill  is  nothing  short  of  a  ways-and-means  measure  to 
bring  about  a  world  federation,  limited  to  the  maintenance  of 
peace.  As  the  commission  must  make  its  report  within  two  years, 
its  recommendations  will  unquestionably  serve  as  a  basis  for  the 
action  of  our  delegation  at  the  Third  Hague  Conference  in  1915. 
Thus  for  the  first  time  in  the  annals  of  history  a  great  nation 
has  officially  recognized  that  the  true  philosophy  of  the  peace 
movement  requires  world  federation  as  a  prerequisite  for  universal 
peace.  The  United  States  of  America  announces  to  the  world 
that  she  is  ready  to  champion  this  idea  in  the  council  of  nations. 
As  the  importance  of  this  bill  in  the  history  of  the  peace  move¬ 
ment  can  scarcely  be  overestimated,  we  take  the  liberty  of  giving 
some  account  of  its  origin  and  history.  In  the  issue  of  “  The 
Independent 77  of  April  22,  1909,  Mr.  Henry  G-.  Granger  pub¬ 
lished  an  article  entitled  “  Roosevelt — A  Suggestion,77  the  gist 
of  which  was  that  the  world  is  ready  for  practical  efforts  toward 
universal  peace,  that  the  United  States  is  the  nation  to  lead  in 
the  movement,  and  that  Theodore  Roosevelt  is  the  one  American 


20 


A  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


most  likely  to  succeed  in  gaining  the  co-operation  of  the  other 
nations. 

We  endorsed  Mr.  Granger’s  suggestion  editorially  and  it  sub¬ 
sequently  evoked  wide  comment  in  the  press  of  the  land.  Mr. 
Carnegie  liked  the  idea,  and  the  New  York  Peace  Society,  of 
which  he  was  president,  circulated  the  suggestion  far  and  wide. 
No  editor  championed  the  proposition  more  zealously  than  Colonel 
John  Temple  Graves,  in  the  New  York  “  American,”  whose  many 
supporting  editorials  gave  the  idea  wide  currency  throughout  the 
land.  Mr.  Granger  in  the  mean  time  was  most  active.  He  en¬ 
listed  the  interest  of  his  friends  in  this  city,  and  finally  a  small 
group  of  them  met  last  autumn  at  dinner  to  talk  the  matter 
over.  The  host  of  the  evening  was  Mr.  W.  J.  Bartnett,  who 
had  become  first  interested  in  internationalism  through  the 
International  Institute  of  Agriculture,  which  his  friend,  David 
Lubin,  a  fellow  Californian,  had  so  successfully  organized.  The 
others  were  Mr.  Oscar  T.  Crosby,  a  graduate  of  West  Point; 
Mr.  W.  C.  Peyton,  Dr.  P.  M.  Willis,  Judge  George  M.  Nelson, 
Mr.  Henry  G.  Granger,  Mr.  W.  H.  Short,  the  secretary  of 
the  New  York  Peace  Society,  and  the  editor  of  “  The  Inde¬ 
pendent.”  This  little  group  thereupon  organized  “  The  World 
Federation  League,”  and  straightway  set  about  to  increase  its 
membership  and  influence.  It  was  surprising  to  see  how  the 
idea  took  and  how  many  men  agreed  to  join,  not  only  in  New 
York,  but  throughout  the  country.  The  League  straightway 
prevailed  upon  the  Hon.  Richard  Bartholdt,  of  Missouri,  the 
chairman  of  the  American  group  of  the  Interparliamentary  Union, 
and  the  first  man  who  ever  stood  up  in  a  parliament  of  the  world 
to  suggest  turning  the  Hague  Conferences  into  a  real  interna¬ 
tional  parliament,  to  introduce  a  bill  into  Congress  for  the 
appointment  of  a  World  Federation  Commission  to  bring  about 
universal  peace.  A  few  of  the  peace-workers  were  sceptical.  But 
the  bill  was  speedily  endorsed  by  the  New  York  Peace  Society, 
the  International  School  of  Peace  at  Boston,  and  the  New  Eng¬ 
land  Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress,  held  at  Hartford,  Connecti¬ 
cut,  on  May  11.  In  the  mean  time,  the  World  Federation  League 
amalgamated  with  the  New  York  Peace  Society  and  became  the 
World  Federation  Committee  of  the  older  organization,  with  Mr. 
Crosby  as  chairman. 

A  strong  delegation  went  down  to  Washington  to  appear  be- 


A  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


21 


fore  the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee  of  the  House,  to  urge  the 
passage  of  the  Bartholdt  bill.  They  were  received  with  the  ut¬ 
most,  courtesy  and  cordiality  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee, 
Mr.  Foster,  as  well  as  by  the  whole  committee,  especially  by 
Messrs.  Bennet  and  Fassett,  of  New  York,  Mr.  Denby,  of  Michi¬ 
gan,  and  Mr.  Granger,  of  Texas. 

In  the  mean  time  Mr.  Roosevelt  had  delivered,  at  Christiania, 
his  remarkable  Nobel  peace  address,  which  was  nothing  less  than 
a  plea  for  the  “  Federation  of  the  World,”  and  which  at  once 
made  him  the  logical  leader  in  any  World  Federation  movement 
started  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Roosevelt’s  address,  of  course,  served  as  a  powerful  rein¬ 
forcement  to  the  arguments  used  by  the  gentlemen  of  the  World 
Federation  League  before  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  We 
have  not  space  here  to  summarize  the  speeches,  but  they  can  be 
found  in  the  pamphlet  “  International  Federation  for  the  Mainte¬ 
nance  of  Peace,”  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  May  7,  1910. 
The  Foreign  Affairs  Committee,  however,  amalgamated  the  Bar- 
tholdt  bill  with  an  analogous  one  of  Representative  Bennet’s  and 
reported  the  new  one  back  unanimously  to  the  House  under  the 
name  of  the  Bennet  bill,  which,  as  we  have  said,  finally  passed 
both  Houses  last  week  without  the  slightest  opposition.  It  is 
gratifying  to  remember  in  this  connection  that  in  1900  the  United 
States  Congress  passed  a  resolution  requesting  the  President  to 
negotiate  arbitration  treaties  with  all  the  nations  of  the  world 
similarly  disposed.  This  was  before  the  day  of  a  single  arbitra¬ 
tion  treaty  and  when  the  nations  only  used  conciliation  through 
diplomacy  to  settle  their  differences.  During  the  past  twenty 
years  the  world  has  passed  from  conciliation  to  arbitration.  It 
is  now  passing  from  arbitration  to  World  Federation.  Thus  our 
Congress  again  takes  the  lead  in  the  peace  movement. 

We  shall  defer  to  a  subsequent  issue  discussion  of  the  prob¬ 
lems  of  world  federation  and  the  limitation  of  armaments  that 
will  come  before  the  commission.  Here  we  wish  only  to  em¬ 
phasize  the  unparalleled  opportunity  before  Mr.  Taft  to  select  a 
commission  of  such  character,  wisdom  and  experience  in  inter¬ 
national  law  and  such  devotion  to  the  cause  of  peace  that  their 
recommendations  will  have  profound  weight  with  all  enlightened 
governments  and  all  thinking  men.  There  are  men  in  the  United 
States  to-day  who  measure  up  to  the  requisite  standard.  And  as 


22‘ 


A  PEACE  COMMISSION. 


for  Theodore  Roosevelt,  to  whom  Mr.  Taft  is  expected  to  offer 
the  chairmanship  of  the  commission,  no  greater  or  nobler  oppor¬ 
tunity  ever  came  to  him  for  public  service.  He  has  already 
achieved  and  ably  filled  the  greatest  national  office  in  the  world. 
How  higher  work  in  the  international  realm  awaits  him.  He 
must  accept  the  call. 


MR.  CARNEGIE  ON  PRESIDENT  TAFT’S 
FAMOUS  UTTERANCE. 


BY  ANDREW  CARNEGIE. 

From  “ Peace  versus  War:  The  President’s  Solution”  in  “  Century 

Magazine”  of  June,  1910. 


Arbitration  of  international  disputes  has  so  far  encountered  a 
serious  obstacle:  nations  have  been  and  still  are  indisposed  to 
submit  all  disputes  to  arbitration.  Although  Belgium  and  Hol¬ 
land,  Chile  and  the  Argentine,  Norway  and  Sweden,  have  done 
so,  one  or  more  exceptions  are  always  made  by  the  chief  nations, 
and  these  are  fatal  to  the  one  indispensable  change  required — 
the  removal  of  the  danger  of  war,  without  which  nothing  vital  is 
gained. 

Many  devoted  disciples  of  peace  were  seriously  studying  this 
feature  of  the  problem  when  the  solution  came  unexpectedly  in 
a  flash  of  inspiration  from  no  less  a  ruler  than  President  Taft, 
that  revealed  the  true  path  to  the  realization  of  peace  on  earth. 
Here  is  the  inspired  deliverance  before  the  Peace  and  Arbitra¬ 
tion  Society  in  Hew  York  on  the  22d  of  March,  1910,  which  we 
believe  will  remain  memorable  for  untold  ages,  and  give  the  au¬ 
thor  rank  among  the  immortals  as  one  of  the  foremost  benefactors 
of  his  race : 

“  Personally  I  do  not  see  any  more  reason  why  matters  of  national 
honor  should  not  be  referred  to  a  court  of  arbitration  than  matters  of 
property  or  of  national  proprietorship.  I  know  that  is  going  further 
than  most  men  are  willing  to  go,  but  I  do  not  see  why  questions  of 
honor  may  not  be  submitted  to  a  tribunal  composed  of  men  of  honor  who 
understand  questions  of  national  honor,  to  abide  by  their  decision,  as 
well  as  any  other  question  of  difference  arising  between  nations.” 


PRESIDENT  TAFTS  GREAT  UTTERANCE .  23 

In  these  few  words  President  Taft  becomes  the  leader  of  the 
holy  crusade  against  man  killing  man  in  war,  as  Lincoln  became 
the  leader  in  the  crusade  against  the  selling  of  man  by  man. 
Much  to  the  dismay  of  mere  party  politicians,  Lincoln  went  to 
the  root  of  the  curse  of  slavery,  declaring  that  a  nation  could  not 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  Our  leader  of  to¬ 
day  declares  it  the  duty  of  nations  to  refer  to  a  court  of  honor 
all  questions  thought  to  affect  their  honor,  as  well  as  any  other 
questions  arising  between  them.  Thus  nations  cannot  sit  as 
judges  in  their  own  causes,  for  this  would  violate  the  first  prin¬ 
ciples  of  natural  justice,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  our  day 
a  judge  known  to  have  sat  in  judgment  in  a  cause  in  which  he 
was  even  in  the  smallest  degree  personally  interested,  would  die 
in  infamy.  So  will  nations  sink  into  infamy  which  insist  much 
longer  upon  trampling  underfoot  tills  benign  rule  of  law.  Courts 
of  honor  such  as  suggested  by  the  President  are  coming  rapidly 
into  favor  in  countries  which  still  tolerate  the  duel.  The  German 
Emperor  especially  is  reputed  to  have  done  much  to  introduce 
these  and  hence  to  restrict  duelling. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  President,  as  he  says,  “  goes  further 
than  most  men  are  willing  to  go  ” ;  otherwise  he  would  not  be  a 
leader;  for  a  leader’s  place  is  in  the  front.  But — and  this  is 
another  characteristic  of  the  truly  great  leader — he  goes  no  fur¬ 
ther  than  is  absolute!}'  necessary.  Had  he  exempted  any  one 
subject,  even  “  honor,”  from  arbitration — although  no  nation  can 
dishonor  another  nation,  and  no  man  dishonor  another  man,  all 
honor’s  wounds  being  self-inflicted — he  would  have  failed  to 
bridge  the  chasm  between  peace  and  the  danger  of  war ,  and  little 
would  have  been  gained.  Armaments  would  continue  to  swell 
as  at  present,  increasing  suspicion,  jealousy,  and  hatred  between 
the  Powers  until  war  broke  forth  as  the  natural  result  of  “  mutual 
preparation,”  which  from  its  very  nature  creates  what  it  so 
vainly  hopes  to  prevent. 

When  the  final  step  is  taken  and  the  representatives  of  the 
nations  assemble  to  organize  the  International  Court,  to  which 
they  agree  to  submit  all  disputes,  it  may  be  assumed  that  they 
will  specify  as  a  fundamental  principle  that  the  independence 
of  nations  and  their  existing  territorial  rights  shall  be  recog¬ 
nized  and  upheld  as  an  integral  part  of  the  organization.  Hence 
no  disputes  could  arise  affecting  either  of  these  subjects.  Thus 


24 


PRESIDENT  TAFT’S  GREAT  UTTERANCE . 


would  be  eliminated  the  chief  source  of  serious  disputes,  those 
affecting  the  honor  or  vital  interests  of  nations. 

Let  all  friends  of  peace  hail  President  Taft  as  our  leader, 
rejoicing  that  he  has  found  the  true  solution  of  the  problem 
and  placed  our  country  in  the  van  in  the  holy  crusade  for  inter¬ 
national  peace,  an  honor  to  which  it  is  fairly  entitled  as  the 
foremost  exponent  and  upholder  of  the  rights  of  man,  or,  as  the 
poet  Burns  put  it  in  Revolutionary  days, 

“  Columbia’s  offspring,  brave  and  free, 

Ye  know  and  dare  proclaim 
The  royalty  of  man.” 

Well  do  the  intelligent  masses  of  Europe  and  of  our  Southern 
republics  know  and  appreciate  the  mission  of  this  Republic  in 
drawing  all  ranks  and  classes  together  in  the  bonds  of  brother¬ 
hood.  Her  representatives  will  not  lack  support  in  these  lands 
nor  in  Canada  when  they  urge  that  all  international  disputes 
shall  be  arbitrated  that  the  world’s  peace  may  remain  unbroken. 


PEACE  AND  THE  AMERICAN  PEACE 

COMMISSION. 


BY  COLONEL  JOHN  TEMPLE  GRAVES. 

Editorial  from  the  New  York  “  American ”  August  17,  1910. 


There  is  powder  in  the  blood  of  the  German  Krupps,  and  for 
fifty  years  the  thunder  of  their  cannon  has  boomed  the  death  of 
dynasties  and  emptied  red  destruction  on  a  thousand  battle-fields 
of  Europe,  of  India,  and  of  Africa. 

And  now  Frau  von  Bohlen  and  Halbach,  daughter  and  heir 
of  all  the  Krupps,  and  owner  of  the  gun-works,  rebels  at  last 
against  her  prodigious  factories  of  slaughter,  vetoes  the  newest 
and  deadliest  “  bomb  cannon  ”  of  her  engineers  and  is  swept  by 
the  spirit  of  the  noble  age  into  an  advocacy  of  universal  peace. 

But  yesterday  Florence  Nightingale,  whose  beautiful  name  is 
linked  with  all  heroism  and  all  philanthropy,  died  in  London — the 


PEACE  AND  THE  COMMISSION. 


25 


Lady  of  the  Lamps,  the  real  Mother  of  the  Red  Cross,  whose  lan¬ 
terns  lit  with  hope  the  carnaged  fields  of  battle,  and  whose  tender 
ministrations  were  the  first  best  healings  of  the  wounds  of  war. 

The  footsteps  of  woman  fall  soft  upon  the  pathway  of  healing, 
and  her  way  through  sighs  and  sentiment  has  been  beautiful,  but 
insufficient  to  the  great  ends  of  peace. 

War  is  a  stern  and  awful  thing,  and  the  reasons  that  abolish 
it,  like  the  reasons  that  inspire  it,  must  be  stern  and  practical 
reasons. 

The  age  about  us  has  developed  just  these  reasons  now.  The 

COMMERCIAL  AGE  HAS  FOUND  THAT  WAR  IS  THE  MOST  REMORSE¬ 
LESS  SPENDTHRIFT  OF  MONEY,  THE  ARCH  LOOTER  OF  ALL  TREAS¬ 
URIES,  THE  MAGNIFIER  AND  MULTIPLIER  OF  ALL  TAXES,  AND  THE 
STUPENDOUS  HINDRANCE  AND  HANDICAP  TO  PUBLIC  EXPENDITURES 
FOR  THE  VAST  AND  VARIED  COMFORTS  AND  NECESSITIES  OF  THE 
HUMAN  RACE  ! 

The  army  and  navy  expenditures  of  America,  England,  France, 
and  Germany  alone  are  one  thousand  millions  every  year. 

Add  Japan,  Russia,  Austria,  and  Italy  and  the  fearful  total  is 

MORE  THAN  TWO  THOUSAND  MILLIONS  EVERY  YEAR  ! 

Consider  what  our  own  vast  expenditure  might  do. 

Since  the  Spanish- American  War  our  war  budget  of  $51,000,000 
has  increased  $134,000,000,  or  360  per  cent.,  and  within  the  eight 
years  the  increase  in  army  and  navy  has  cost  the  American  people 
alone  seventy  thousand  dollars  more  than  one  thousand  million 

DOLLARS ! 

This  eight-year  increase  has  been  natural  and  imperatively 
necessary  to  keep  up  with  the  martial  preparations  of  other 
NATIONS  THAT  WOULD  HAVE  BULLIED  US  IN  COMMERCE  OR  DIPLO¬ 
MACY  IF  WE  HAD  NOT  BEEN  PREPARED  AS  THEY  WERE  PREPARED. 

But  think  of  it !  This  eight-year  increase  exceeds  the  national 
debt  by  $158,000,000 ! 

It  exceeds  the  entire  budget  of  the  United  States  for  1910 ! 

It  is  twice  as  much  as  the  highest  estimate  of  carrying  out  the 
deep  Traterw'ays  project  of  an  internal  commerce ! 

It  is  nearly  three  times  the  estimated  cost  of  replanting  the 
56,000,000  acres  of  denuded  forest  land  in  the  United  States ! 

It  is  three  times  the  estimated  cost  of  the  Panama  Canal! 

It  is  three  times  the  cost  of  carrying  out  the  whole  irrigation 
programme  contemplated  in  this  generation ! 


26 


PEACE  AND  THE  COMMISSION. 


The  increase  for  1908-09  alone  is  only  $13,000,000  less  than 
all  the  gifts  to  charities,  libraries,  educational  institutions,  and 
other  public  causes  in  1909  ! 

These  are  the  tremendous  reasons  which  are  dawning  upon 
a  practical  and  commercial  world  to  advance  the  practical  neces¬ 
sity  for  peace. 

All  nations  and  all  peoples  are  beginning  to  realize  that  these 
stupendous  sums  of  money  can  either  be  lifted  in  taxes  from 

STAGGERING  PEOPLES,  OR  THEY  CAN  BE  EXPENDED  IN  WISER  AND 
GREATER  WAYS  FOR  THE  WELFARE  OF  THE  PEOPLES  THEMSELVES. 

Also,  it  is  growing  into  the  minds  of  men  that  there  is  a  better 
way  than  big  guns  and  human  slaughter  to  settle  the  differences 
of  nations. 

Our  own  great  country  is  nobly  leading  tile  march  of 
this  majestic  idea  through  the  world.  The  great-hearted 
President  and  the  large-minded  Secretary  of  State  have  assumed 
the  initiative  of  the  Universal  Peace  movement.  The  New  York 
u  American  ”  had  the  good  fortune  to  herald  the  first  advance  of 
universal  peace  in  these  immediate  years. 

Swiftly  in  response  the  people  of  our  country  have  rallied  to 
it  everywhere,  and  it  may  be  safely  said  that  the  universal  peace 
spirit  is  stronger  in  America  than  in  any  other  nation  in  the 
world.  Old  peace  societies  have  revived  and  taken  on  new  life, 
new  peace  societies  have  sprung  up  like  magic.  Public  voices  are 
crying  “  Peace !”  And  five  peace  resolutions  are  pending  before 
Congress,  two  of  which  have  passed. 

The  President  lias  in  his  discretion  now,  under  act  of 
Congress,  to  appoint  five  great  citizens  as  commissioners 
to  visit  other  great  nations  in  the  interest  of  universal 

PEACE. 

No  nobler  commission  was  ever  formed  on  earth.  It  is  in  the 
beginning  a  thrilling  honor  to  belong  to  it,  and  in  the  end  it  may 
mean  immortality. 

The  men  who  compose  this  commission  should  be  men 
OF  IDEAS,  of  proven  power,  of  great  influence,  and  of 

THOROUGH  CONSECRATION  TO  THE  MIGHTY  END  IN  VIEW.  THEY 
SHOULD  BE  MEN  OF  ACTION  AND  OF  EXECUTIVE  CAPACITY. 

They  are  to  overture  the  great  nations  for  a  favorable  answer 
to  Secretary  Knox’s  proposition  for  an  enlargement  of  the  powers 
of  the  Hague  Tribunal  to  a  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice,  and  to 


PEACE  AND  THE  COMMISSION. 


27 

make  the  way,  through  international  consent,  for  the  gradual 
disarmament  of  nations  and  the  peaceful  settlement  of  all  inter¬ 
national  disputes. 

But  these  great  men  must  also  be  vital  agents  in  the  creation  of 
a  universal  public  opinion  that  will  direct  all  nations  to  the 
central  and  majestic  end. 

They  must  realize  that  universal  peace  will  never  come  by 
general  clamor  or  by  individual  expression  or  the  personal  dictums 
of  Presidents  or  Kings. 

Universal  peace  can  only  come  by  universal  legislation, 

AND  IT  IS  TOWARD  UNIVERSAL  LEGISLATION  THAT  THIS  GREAT 
COMMISSION  MUST  DIRECT  ITS  ENERGIES  AND  ITS  BRAINS. 

It  is  five  years  (in  1915)  before  the  next  Hague  Conference 
meets  again. 

Our  American  commissioners  may  do  much  within  that  time 
to  focalize  the  universal  sentiment,  and  to  prepare  the  plan  and 
the  universal  machinery  to  be  submitted  from  the  Hague  Con¬ 
ference  to  the  separate  nations. 

It  is  possible  that  they  may  do  more. 

A  great  commission  of  men  who  do  things  may  move  so 
mightily  upon  the  nations  that  within  these  five  years  the  several 
parliaments  and  congresses  of  the  nations  may  legislate  the  au¬ 
thority  for  universal  arbitration  and  for  gradual  disarmament. 

It  is  possible  that  the  Peace  Commission  may  do  an  even 
greater  thing.  In  the  rapid  growth  or  crystallization  of  ideas 
they  may  be  able  so  to  stir  the  judgment  and  feeling  of  the 
greater  nations  that  within  this  time  it  may  be  possible  to 

ASSEMBLE  IN  WASHINGTON  OR  NEW  YORK  A  GENERAL  PARLIA¬ 
MENT  OF  ALL  NATIONS,  WHICH  IN  ONE  NOBLE  AND  IMMORTAL 
SESSION  MAY  EFFECTIVELY  AND  PERMANENTLY  LEGISLATE  UNI¬ 
VERSAL  PEACE  INTO  THE  WORLD. 

President  Taft  does  well  to  move  slowly  in  choosing  these  five 
great  Americans  to  carry  this  country’s  overture  for  universal 
peace. 

He  has  never  faced  a  profounder  responsibility  or  a  more 

GLORIOUS  OPPORTUNITY. 


RECENT  PROGRESS  IN  THE  PEACE 

MOVEMENT. 

Reprint  from  Boston  “Herald,”  September  23,  1910. 


The  year  1910  has  seen  history  made  in  the  Peace  Move¬ 
ment.  President  Taft,  on  March  22d,  in  a  speech  before  the 
American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League,  took  the  advanced  posi¬ 
tion  that  all  controversies  between  nations,  including  matters 
affecting  national  honor,  should  be  settled  by  an  International 
Tribunal.  He  would  substitute  the  decisions  of  such  a  Tribunal 
for  appeals  to  arms. 

Congress  at  its  last  session  authorized  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  appoint  a  Peace  Commission  “to  consider  the 
expediency  of  utilizing  existing  international  agencies  for  the 
purpose  of  lindting  the  armaments  of  the  nations  of  the  world 
by  international  agreement  and  of  constituting  the  combined 
navies  of  the  world  an  international  force  for  the  preservation  of 
universal  peace/’ 

At  the  Stockholm  Peace  Congress,  held  August  3d,  it  was 
unanimously  resolved  that  all  the  nations  be  requested  to  appoint 
similar  commissions. 

Secretary  Knox  has  submitted  to  the  nations  his  proposition 
of  constituting  an  international  court  of  arbitral  justice. 

In  an  able  address  before  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
Secretary  Knox  made  it  clear  that,  in  his  opinion,  world  federa¬ 
tion  is  essential  to  the  attainment  of  permanent  international 
peace.  At  the  Stockholm  Congress  it  was  said :  “  The  great 
thinkers  and  statesmen  who  have  sought  for  a  means  by  which 
peace  between  the  civilized  states  may  be  assured  are  agreed  that 
it  must  be  brought  about  by  some  kind  of  federal  union.  By 
federation  we  mean  such  a  juridical  union  between  independent 
states  as  shall  provide  peaceful  and  rational  methods  of  settling 
all  questions  arising  out  of  their  mutual  relations,  eliminating 


RECENT  PROGRESS. 


29 


every  occasion  for  resort  to  brute  force,  but  not  interfering  with 
their  autonomy/' 

Public  sentiment  in  England  and  Germany  has  recently  been 
aroused  by  a  great  speech  of  the  English  Prime  Minister,  Mr. 
Asquith.  Mr.  Asquith  said:  “If  it  were  possible  by  arrangement 
between  the  two  countries  even  now  to  reduce  the  rate  of  con¬ 
struction,  no  one  would  be  more  delighted  than  Plis  Majesty's 
Government.  We  have  approached  the  German  Government  on 
the  subject.  They  found  themselves  unable,  and  they  could  not 
do  it  without  an  Act  of  Parliament  repealing  their  Navy  Law, 
which  they  tell  us,  no  doubt  with  perfect  truth,  would  not  have 
the  support  of  public  opinion  in  Germany." 

The  German  press  has  welcomed  this  speech.  The  “  Berliner 
Tageblatt ”  the  great  organ  of  the  commercial  and  industrial 
classes  in  Germany,  commenting  on  the  speech,  says:  “We  most 
emphatically  protest  against  the  assertion  that  popular  opinion 
would  not  endorse  such  an  alteration  of  the  Navy  Bill  as  would 
admit  of  a  limitation  compact  with  England.  While  Germany 
would  refuse  to  be  dictated  to  by  any  foreign  Power  as  to  the 
extent  of  her  naval  armaments,  it  would  be  a  very  different 
thing  if  the  greatest  sea  power  in  the  world  holds  out  the  hand 
with  a  view  of  limiting  armaments  or  keeping  them  at  a  certain 
fixed  point.  Such  an  offer  would  be  welcomed  by  the  whole  nation 
with  the  greatest  cordiality."  When  the  “  Tageblatt "  sent  a  cir¬ 
cular  letter  to  all  the  most  important  provincial  papers  of  the 
Empire,  we  find  the  result  of  its  inquiries  thus  summarized  by 
the  Berlin  organ:  “  The  vast  majority  of  German  provincial  news¬ 
papers  would  hail  with  delight  any  compact  that  would  limit 
naval  armaments.  The  German  Government  has  no  right  and 
no  reason  for  declaring  that  it  is  bound  to  refuse  any  offer  of 
negotiations  on  this  subject,  because  such  a  step  would  outrage 
public  opinion."  The  Berlin  “  Vorwaerts ”  says:  “If  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  now  proposed  a  reduction  in  armaments  the  Reichstag 
would  pass  the  bill." 

And  the  Manchester  “  Guardian  "  says :  “  The  warm  reception 
that  Mr.  Asquith's  speech  on  the  Navy  has  received  in  Germany 
and  Austria  shows  how  fast  opinion  is  ripening,  and  how  weary 
Central  Europe  is  becoming  of  the  unnatural  antithesis  between 
herj policy  and  that  of  Great  Britain." 

The  next  great  step  that  will  be  taken  in  the  Peace  Movement 


30 


RECENT  PROGRESS. 


will  be  to  introduce  it  as  a  practical  issue  into  the  politics  of  all 
lands.  There  is  an  economic  waste  in  excess  of  $1,000,000,000 
per  year  suffered  by  the  nations  for  unnecessary  military  and 
naval  purposes.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  wasting 
approximately  $150,000,000  per  year  for  such  purposes. 

Until  a  Federation  of  the  Nations  is  established  and  a  Supreme 
Court  of  International  Justice  is  constituted,  this  waste  will  con¬ 
tinue.  It  will  be  the  province  of  the  Peace  Commission  that 
is  to  be  appointed  by  President  Taft,  and  of  the  similar  com¬ 
missions  that  will  be  appointed  by  other  Governments,  to  devise 
a  Federation  of  the  Nations  which  will  conserve  the  resources 
of  the  Governments  establishing  such  a  federation  and  will  save 
to  the  people  a  large  part  of  the  heavy  expenditures  now  made 
for  military  and  naval  purposes. 

The  American  Peace  Commission  will  undoubtedly  recommend 
to  Congress  the  establishment  of  a  Supreme  Court  of  Interna¬ 
tional  Justice  to  decide  all  controversies  between  nations.  To 
accomplish  this  end,  it  will  probably  recommend  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  Federation  of  the  Nations.  Congress  will  without 
doubt  be  asked  by  those  interested  in  the  movement  to  take 
affirmative  action  on  such  a  report  and  to  present  a  practical 
plan  to  the  nations  to  carry  the  recommendations  of  the  Peace 
Commission  into  effect.  The  next  Hague  Conference  meets  in 
1915.  It  is  believed  that  similar  Peace  Commissions  will  be  ap¬ 
pointed  by  several  of  the  great  Powers  within  the  coming  two 
years.  It  is  the  hope  of  those  interested  in  the  movement  that 
a  plan  will  be  devised  which  will  meet  the  approval  of  several 
of  the  great  Powers  and  which  will  have  the  sanction  and  support 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  which  plan  can  be 
presented  to  the  next  Hague  Conference.  There  is  adequate  time 
to  prepare  Articles  of  Federation  for  submittal  to  the  Conference. 
The  ratification  of  these  Articles  by  seven  or  eight  of  the  great 
Powers  should  establish  the  Federation,  with  the  resultant  saving 
of  from  $1,000,000,000  to  $1,500,000,000  per  annum  to  the  na¬ 
tions,  and  with  a  saving  of  approximately  $150,000,000  per  annum 
to  the  United  States  of  America  alone. 

The  economic  aspect  of  this  movement  should  appeal  to  all 
thinking  people.  Wastes  have  been  eliminated  in  many  economic 
fields  during  the  past  twenty  years,  to  the  great  benefit  of  the 
people.  The  greatest  waste  yet  unchecked  is  the  waste  of  mili- 


RECENT  PROGRESS. 


31 


tarism.  President  Taft  is  devoting  time  and  thought  to  the 
eliminating  of  waste  in  our  national  Government.  He  has  al¬ 
ready  effected  economies  of  great  moment  and  has,  as  yet,  only 
begun  the  work. 

The  programme  outlined  above  is  a  feasible  one.  The  attitude 
of  President  Taft  and  Secretary  Knox  toward  this  movement  is 
well  known.  Both  believe  in  and  support  the  American  Peace 
Commission.  Both  are  working  for  the  establishment  of  a  Tri¬ 
bunal  that  will  decide  international  controversies.  As  pointed 
out  by  Justice  Brewer,  in  the  masterly  address  delivered  shortly 
before  his  death,  it  is  the  mission  of  the  United  States  to  lead 
the  world  in  the  Peace  Movement.  May  the  year  1915  see  the 
Articles  of  Federation  of  the  United  States  of  the  World  approved 
by  the  Hague  Conference  and  ratified  by  the  leading  nations ! 


Walter  J.  Bartnett. 


